Black Actress Detained - WRONG: Joker; RIGHT: Mitch Rapp, halfback20, 00Rocket28

[hidinout]

Depends what the meaning of " clothed" is . Or what the definition of sex is , or what IS is ?

[lawildcat]

In her CNN interview she was coy about what she and her boyfriend were doing. Said "fully clothed" "regardless of how passionate."

 

She did have a skirt on so.....

[TheDeuce]

In her CNN interview she was coy about what she and her boyfriend were doing. Said "fully clothed" "regardless of how passionate."

 

You can definitely get busy with most (or all) of your clothes on... Not that I know. I've been told. :jump:

[Clyde]

So let's assume that the police can produce the initial phone call about two people having sex in the front seat of the car with the front door open.

 

Doesn't that warrant at least a questioning of the two?

 

Does that meet the minimum requirements for "reasonable suspicion?" If so , then she absolutely has to produce ID on demand. If so , the subsequent cuffing was justified as soon as she took off.

 

So it really gets down to "reasonable suspicion" and the reported phone call meeting the legal requirements of it. IF we all agree it does then there's no story.

[Bluegrasscard]

Having sex at 2pm on a Thursday, out in the open, with the door open? Come on now...

 

[video=youtube;QEupNTQm-lA]

[woodsrider]

She certainly seems unstable and immature.

 

I did chuckle with the officer said "I'm mildly interested that you have a publicist."

 

The police must LOVE people that think they know all of the laws.

 

It must be a joy having to deal with people who have a extremely inflated sense of self importance. I'm sure they here "do you know who I am" or I'll have your job" about 10 times a day.

[lawildcat]

Daniele Watts, ?Django Unchained? actress allegedly mistaken for prostitute, heard arguing with police in audio - NY Daily News

 

I like this quote from the police officer: “We’re going to get your ID one way or another,” he says. “Thank you for bringing up the race card I never hear that.”

[halfback20]

The more quotes I read from these two the more they seem like idiots. I've never heard of either them yet they constantly refer themselves/each other as celebs and public figures.

[JokersWild24]

So let's assume that the police can produce the initial phone call about two people having sex in the front seat of the car with the front door open. Doesn't that warrant at least a questioning of the two? Does that meet the minimum requirements for "reasonable suspicion?" If so ' date=' then she absolutely has to produce ID on demand. If so , the subsequent cuffing was justified as soon as she took off. So it really gets down to "reasonable suspicion" and the reported phone call meeting the legal requirements of it. IF we all agree it does then there's no story.[/quote']

 

Best answer: it depends. Call would probably need to provide some specific details about those two that are more than a general description of a silver Mercedes in an upscale neighborhood to warrant questioning if the officers came by and didn't see anything suspicious themselves (different story if the officers come by and things match exact descriptions that are specific and/or they see something incriminating themselves.

 

Someone can make an anonymous call about as black Nissan car on Nicholasville Road with a stolen TV in the trunk, but it's not really like that gives police the right to go stopping every black Nissan they see in a 25-mile radius and looking in the trunk just on that. Devil is in the details, IMO, and it most likely gets into the question of how much info was provided and how reliable that info turned out to be based on officer's initial observations.

 

If there's a damning 911 call, then I'll still say that despite many, myself included, jumping the gun, part of this can be attributed to the LAPD not mentioning important details like those before this really took off (incident happens Thursday, viral on Friday and Saturday, and no details past "no arrest so no report" were released until Sunday afternoon and now more reports on Monday.

 

"We're still gathering facts and will have no comment while we investigate, and we'll make a statement at the appropriate time" would have probably been a strategy that worked just as well and, if the info they are releasing now is true, could have cut the legs out of the story before it got to the point of an internal investigation.

 

Again, if they were having sex in a car in broad daylight and got a pass on it, then going to the media was beyond stupid, no two ways about that.

[halfback20]

Interesting...

 

"He didn't even give me the respect of telling me what happened," she told CNN. "For me, if he would have come to me like 'excuse me ma'am, you seem like a respectable person but someone made a call can we just talk to you for a second,' the whole situation would have been different."

 

Read more: Daniele Watts, ?Django Unchained? actress allegedly mistaken for prostitute, heard arguing with police in audio - NY Daily News

 

I bet she didn't think that TMZ video would come out. The first thing she says to the police officer after getting off of the phone with her dad is, "What's the issue?"

 

The officer responds by saying "someone called the police saying there were lewd acts in the car".

 

Oops.

[JokersWild24]

So let's assume that the police can produce the initial phone call about two people having sex in the front seat of the car with the front door open.

 

Doesn't that warrant at least a questioning of the two?

 

Does that meet the minimum requirements for "reasonable suspicion?" If so , then she absolutely has to produce ID on demand. If so , the subsequent cuffing was justified as soon as she took off.

 

So it really gets down to "reasonable suspicion" and the reported phone call meeting the legal requirements of it. IF we all agree it does then there's no story.

 

She possibly didn't have to produce ID, even then. NY Daily News article mentions NY & California as two states without statutes requiring someone to produce ID even when detained on suspicion of criminal activity.

 

Given the fact that she also says, "do you know how many times the cops have been called on us because I'm black and he's white", I wonder if this is an issue that's came up before.

 

Her boyfriend seemed to handle everything well. I'm not really sure the cop helps himself with some of his comments like, "get mad, that always helps" and things like that, but nothing I'd call insanely overreacting on his part either.

 

 

As far as her not wanting to give her ID, I can possibly understand that given the fact that she's an actress, she wouldn't want her name appearing in a police report.

 

Definitely sounds like something she could have handled better though.

[75center]

This is probably the most famous she's ever been which now has me wondering if she's very very stupid or very very smart.

[halfback20]

She possibly didn't have to produce ID, even then. NY Daily News article mentions NY & California as two states without statutes requiring someone to produce ID even when detained on suspicion of criminal activity.

 

Given the fact that she also says, "do you know how many times the cops have been called on us because I'm black and he's white", I wonder if this is an issue that's came up before.

 

Her boyfriend seemed to handle everything well. I'm not really sure the cop helps himself with some of his comments like, "get mad, that always helps" and things like that, but nothing I'd call insanely overreacting on his part either.

 

 

As far as her not wanting to give her ID, I can possibly understand that given the fact that she's an actress, she wouldn't want her name appearing in a police report.

 

Definitely sounds like something she could have handled better though.

 

Hard to believe much of what she says now, because it looks to me like she lied on CNN.

 

I'm not sure your theory about the ID is right. Why would she not want to give ID because of a possible report, then go on Facebook, CNN and contact attorneys/NAACP?

[JokersWild24]

Hard to believe much of what she says now' date=' because it looks to me like she lied on CNN. I'm not sure your theory about the ID is right. Why would she not want to give ID because of a possible report, then go on Facebook, CNN and contact attorneys/NAACP?[/quote']

 

I know what you're saying but basically every time an officer runs a name it's logged in a report related to that call and those can end up being public record (or at least disadvantageous to you).

 

Since she eventually had her name ran while she was detained, she could have felt nothing to lose then.

 

Just from a perspective of someone not wanting your name to be in a report when no good can come from it for you and you aren't required to give it, I can see why someone would decline to give it.

 

I don't even know if she actually knew that herself even though, so it's all speculation.

 

That's just a guess and I can't really say that's what was going through her mind, just that if that was going through her mind, I can understand why given tabloids and all that.

[nkypete]

Get a room.